The key dynamic in the debate seems to lie between these extremes:

Colorado wasn't CHANGING eligibillity or disqualification rules for office, they were trying to ensure votes of their state were not wasted on a candidate who was ineligible for office and would be / should be blocked from TAKING office. If Congress wanted to vote to exempt a candidate from exclusion under Section 3, they should take that action BEFORE the election cycle so voters have that information in hand as they choose.

Trump's counsel argued any attempt to ENFORCE Section 3 PRIOR to actually TAKING office is a) denying the "right" of someone to run for office and b) exceeding the authority of the state to enforce "restrictions" because in theory, Congress could wait until the day of swearing in to vote to eliminate a candidate's ineligibilty.

In short, the USSC views the rights of an individual CANDIDATE to have every possible chance of attaining office to be more important than the rights of millions of voters to clearly understand who is likely to take office based on their vote.

The USSC also rejected clear history from those who framed the Fourteenth Amendment that the case of insurrection should NOT be a case where the tie goes to the runner. The bar should be high enough for past insurrectionist behavior that a party needs to find someone else to run. There's no way every state is going to spend the money petitioning Congress to vote on all of the THOUSANDS of citizens getting convicted of ACTUAL insurrection to block them from appearing on ballots or taking office. Perhaps hundreds WILL take office across the country, further corrupting state and federal government.

An APPALLING decision.


WTH

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.